Raising the Grade

Higher yield strength added to ASTM A706/A706M specification

for low-alloy steel reinforcing bars

By David P. Gustafson

A STM Subcommittee A01.05, Steel Reinforcement, has

made a significant revision to A706/A706M “Standard
Specification for Low-Alloy Steel Deformed and Plain Bars
bars could be produced within the proposed limits on
tensile properties and chemical composition.

for Concrete Reinforcement.”1 The specification was Properties

developed in the early 1970s in response to the structural Tensile and yield strength
engineering community’s requirements for steel reinforcing For both Grade 60 (420) and 80 (550) bars, ASTM A706/
bars with controlled tensile properties for use in earth- A706M prescribes minimum and maximum yield
quake-resistant structures and restricted chemical strengths as well as minimum tensile strengths (Table 1).
composition for weldability. For a discussion of the The latest version of ASTM A706/A706M allows the yield
historical and technical aspects of the specification, see strength to be defined using either the offset method
Reference 2. From its inception in 1974, the ASTM A706/ (0.2% offset) or the drop of the beam (alternatively, the
A706M specification covered only Grade 60 (420) bars, but halt in the gauge) of the tensile testing machine.
as of December 2009, it includes requirements for bars with High-strength reinforcing bars typically exhibit a
a minimum yield strength of 80 ksi (550 MPa) (designated “round-house” stress-strain curve, so it’s possible the offset
as Grade 80 [550]). The increased yield strength was method will overestimate the value of the yield strength
especially encouraged by structural engineers, bar that should be used in the strength design method of
producers, bar fabricators, and contractors from seismically ACI 318. For reinforcing bars with a yield strength exceeding
active areas because higher strength bars can help reduce
congestion of reinforcement and enhance constructibility, Table 1:
especially in earthquake-resistant structures. Tensile requirements for bars per ASTM A706/A706M
Grade Grade
Production proof
60 (420) 80 (550)
In August 2006, the first draft of the proposed revision
was developed by Subcommittee A01.05’s Task Group on Tensile strength,
80,000 (550)* 100,000 (690)*
Reinforcing Bars, chaired by James G. Hutchinson, minimum, psi (MPa)
formerly with Gerdau Ameristeel, Knoxville, TN. During Yield strength,
60,000 (420) 80,000 (550)
the early vetting of the proposed revision, a major issue minimum, psi (MPa)
arose: was commercial production of Grade 80 (550) bars Yield strength,
78,000 (540) 98,000 (675)
possible? Four producers, with mills located in California, maximum, psi (MPa)
Oregon, Washington, and South Carolina, volunteered to Elongation in 8 in.
make trial heats and resolve the issue. (200 mm) length, minimum %
A heat is a batch of steel produced in a single
No. 3, 4, 5, 6
furnace run. The size of a heat, therefore, depends on 14 12
(10, 13, 16, 19) bars
a mill’s particular equipment and production procedures.
Trial heats produced in the four mills ranged from No. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
12 12
(22, 25, 29, 32, 36) bars
about 35 to 80 tons (32 to 72 tonnes). The trial heats
were rolled into several sizes of reinforcing bars, No. 14, 18 (43, 57) bars 10 10
samples were tested, and the results confirmed that *
Tensile strength shall not be less than 1.25 times actual yield strength

Concrete international / april 2010 59

60 ksi (420 MPa), ACI 318-08, Section 3.5.3.2, requires that
the yield strength is taken as the stress corresponding to a
strain of 0.35%.3 Likewise, ASTM A706/A706M requires that
the stress corresponding to 0.35% strain is reported as not
less than 60 or 80 ksi (420 or 550 MPa) for Grade 60 (420)
or Grade 80 (550) bars, respectively.
ASTM A706/A706M also imposes a minimum tensile-
yield ratio, requiring tensile strength to be at least 1.25 times
the actual yield strength (Table 1). The purpose of the
minimum tensile-yield ratio, or minimum strain-hardening
requirement, is to ensure that the bending moment
increase over the region of plastic hinging can be
accommodated (yield stress at one end of the region and,
necessarily, a greater stress at the other end) to preclude
a premature brittle failure that would result from the
steel tensile strength being exceeded.4 There is no
corresponding requirement for the minimum tensile-yield
ratio of ASTM A615/A615M bars.
As shown in Table 1, ASTM A706/A706M also requires
larger values of minimum elongation than ASTM A615/
A615M. The more restrictive requirements for minimum
elongation are intended to ensure ductile behavior in
earthquake-resistant structures. For example, while
ASTM A706/A706M requires 12% elongation for No. 8 (No.
25) bars in either Grade 60 (420) or Grade 80 (550), ASTM
A615/A615M requires only 8 and 7% elongation for No. 8
(No. 25) bars in the respective grades.
Chemical composition
To accommodate the addition of Grade 80 (550) to the
specification, no modifications were made to the requirements
for restricted chemical composition. The same limits on
individual chemical elements and carbon equivalent that
apply to Grade 60 (420) also apply to Grade 80 (550).
Why Grade 80 (550)?
ACI 318-08 requirements for specified yield strengths
of reinforcement and transverse reinforcement ( fy and fyt,
respectively) dictated the yield strength limits in ASTM
A706/A706M. Section 9.4 limits the values of fy and fyt used
in calculations to 80 ksi (550 MPa). Sections 10.9.3 and
21.1.5.4 do, however, allow exceptions for spiral and
confinement reinforcement. For these applications, fyt can
be up to 100 ksi (690 MPa).
Many code sections also limit fy to 60 ksi (420MPa):
■■ Section 11.4.2 for shear reinforcement (stirrups
fabricated from reinforcing bars);
■■ Section 11.5.3.4 for torsion reinforcement;
■■ Section 11.6.6 for shear-friction reinforcement;
■■ Section 18.9.3.2 for bonded reinforcement in prestressed
concrete members;
■■ Section 19.3.2 for reinforcement in shells and folded
plates; and
■■ Section 21.1.5.2 for reinforcement in special moment
frames and special structural walls.
60 april 2010 / Concrete international
Grade history
Working stress to strength design
ASTM A431, which was issued in 1959, covered Grade 75
reinforcing bars.5 ASTM A432, which was also issued in
1959, covered Grade 60 bars.6 In 1968, Grade 60 and 75,
along with Grade 40, were melded into ASTM A615.7 When
the ASTM subcommittee began exploring the feasibility of
adding Grade 80 (550) to ASTM A706/A706M, committee
members questioned why their predecessors had
selected Grade 75 rather than Grade 80, as the logical
choice would be to maintain a progression with Grades 40,
60, and 80 rather than Grades 40, 60, and 75. I believe the
rationale for the subcommittee’s choice of Grade 75 can
be traced back to the requirements in ACI 318-51.8 A
provision in that edition limited the nominal allowable
compressive stress in vertical column reinforcement to
40% of fy, but not to exceed 30,000 psi (207 MPa). Although
Grade 75 was not cited per se, the 1951 Code, in effect,
permitted the use of column reinforcement with a yield
strength of up to 30 ksi/0.40 = 75 ksi.
ACI 318-56 included the same limit on allowable
compressive stress for working stress design, but it also
included the strength design method (via an appendix).9
Provisions in the appendix limited the stress in tensile
and compressive reinforcement at “ultimate load” to the
minimum of fy or 60 ksi. Whereas ACI 318-6310 carried over
the 40% of fy limit for working stress design from ACI 318-56,
the strength design provisions changed. When reinforcement
was used with fy in excess of 60 ksi (420 MPa), the yield
strength used in design was required to be reduced to
0.85 fy or 60 ksi (420 MPa), whichever was greater, unless
tension tests showed that the strain in the bars would be
limited to 0.003 at the specified yield strength. ACI 318-63
also permitted the use of Grade 75 bars in tension if tests on
the full-size typical structural members showed satisfactory
performance with regard to cracking at service load.
With the acknowledged benefit of hindsight, I believe
Grade 80 should have replaced Grade 75 in the A615
specification at about the time ACI 318-7111 was issued.
Perhaps the subcommittee considered such a replacement,
but the modest 5000 psi (35 MPa) increase in minimum
yield strength may not have been compelling. Shortly
thereafter, there was a step backward as Grade 75 was
deleted from the 1974 edition of the A61512 specification
because a conflict existed between the yield strength
definitions in ASTM A615 and ACI 318-71. While ASTM A615
required the minimum yield strength of 75,000 psi (518 MPa)
to correspond to a tensile strain of 0.6%, ACI 318-71
prescribed that the yield strength correspond to a strain
of 0.35%. Grade 75 was reinstated in the 1987 edition of
ASTM A615, with the provisions for yield strength
compatible with those in the ACI Code.
Working beyond ASTM A706 to ASTM A615
In August 2006, when the ASTM Task Group on
Reinforcing Bars decided to pursue the addition of a during the final stages of the balloting process of the
higher yield strength to the ASTM A706/A706M specification, proposed revision. It was finally agreed that the marking
they had the benefit of starting with a “clean sheet of required for yield strength would be either the number 80
paper.” Hence, the task group’s focus was immediately for Grade 80, 6 for Grade 550, or three continuous
on Grade 80 (550). longitudinal lines through at least five deformation
It’s important to note, however, that while Grade 80 spaces (Fig. 1). The type of steel is indicated by a letter W
(550) has also recently been added to ASTM A615/A615M, for bars meeting ASTM A706/A706M.
Grade 75 (520) has been maintained in the specification
for at least the near-term.13 This will accommodate HOGNESTAD’S VISION achieved
downstream users of Grade 75 (520) reinforcing bars that As a “force” in the industry with regard to his
use bars for such things as roof bolts for the mining involvement and contributions to ACI 318 and to other
industry. Thus, the current edition of the specification, codes and standards, the late Eivind Hognestad established
ASTM A615/A615M-09b, includes Grades 40 (280), 60 (420), a legendary career at the Portland Cement Association. In
75 (520), and 80 (550). ASTM A615/A615M also permits October 1967, Hognestad delivered an invited presentation
the use of the offset method for determining the yield at the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute’s (CRSI) Fall
strength for Grades 60 (420) and 80 (550), and it requires Business Meeting. The title of his presentation was
that the stress corresponding to 0.35% strain is reported
and is not less than the minimum yield strength for either
grade. As with those in ASTM A706/A706M, the tensile
requirements in ASTM A615/A615M-09b are in harmony
with Section 3.5.3.2 of ACI 318-08.
Although both ASTM A615/A615M and ASTM A706/
A706M now cover Grade 80 (550) bars, it’s important to
note that ASTM A706/A706M continues to place upper
limits on yield strength—a fundamental requirement for
satisfactory use in reinforced concrete structures
designed to resist earthquakes. According to McDermott,3
the purpose of the maximum limitation on yield strength
is to ensure that the reinforcing bars will yield before the
concrete crushes, and so that excessive bending moment
resistance is not induced within the region of plastic
hinging, which could induce high shear resulting in shear
and/or bond failures. Whereas ASTM A706/A706M limits
the maximum respective yield strengths for Grade 60 (420) (a)
and 80 (550) bars to 78 and 98 ksi (540 and 675 MPa), there
are no corresponding limits for ASTM A615/A615M bars.
Revising ASTM A615/A615M to add Grade 80 (550) was
considerably less challenging than revising ASTM A706/
A706M. The Task Group on Reinforcing Bars reviewed the
test results of several hundred heats of Grade 75 (520)
bars produced by many steel mills. The review showed
that a large percentage of the Grade 75 heats would meet
the requirements of the proposed Grade 80 (550). Hence,
the only aspect of the proposed revision that was intensely
debated was the marking requirement for the minimum
yield strength designation.

Grade marks
To distinguish the new bars, ASTM A706/A706M and
ASTM A615/A615M require identification marks rolled
onto the surface of a deformed bar to denote the producer’s
mill designation, the size of the bar, the type of steel, and (b)
the minimum yield strength designation. The “minimum
yield strength designation” part of the marking scheme Fig. 1: Identification marks for bars meeting ASTM A706/A706M
for Grade 80 (550) bars underwent an intense debate specifications: (a) Grade 80; and (b) Grade 550

Concrete international / april 2010 61

“Trends in Consumer Demands for New Grades of
Reinforcing Steel.”14 Based on what he perceived as the
needs in the design of reinforced concrete structural
members and for the construction of reinforced concrete
structures, Hognestad presented the rationale for the
grades of steel reinforcing bars that should be produced
and available in the marketplace in the 1970s and beyond.
He proposed three grades: Grades 60, 60W, and 80W—
the “W” designating reinforcing bars with restricted
chemical composition.
When the revision of ASTM A706/A706M received
final approval, it occurred to me that Hognestad’s
visionary proposition had been finally realized, albeit
some 40 years after his eloquent presentation to the
reinforcing steel industry.
References
1. ASTM A706/A706M-09b, “Standard Specification for Low-Alloy
Steel Deformed and Plain Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2009, 7 pp.
2. Gustafson, D.P., “Re-Visiting Low-Alloy Steel Reinforcing Bars,”
Concrete International, V. 29, No. 1, Jan. 2007, pp. 55-59.
3. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
The Concrete Industry’s
Strategic Development Council
SDC is a unique forum, made up of concrete
industry leaders from all facets of the industry,
developed for the purpose of facilitating
emerging concrete technologies into the
marketplace effectively and efficiently.
Now is the perfect time to engage!
SDC Session #27
May 6-7, 2010
Kansas City, Missouri
Learn more at www.concreteSDC.org
or contact sdc@concretesdc.org
SDC is a council of the ACI Foundation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
American Concrete Institute.
62 april 2010 / Concrete international
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary,” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp.
4. McDermott, J.F., “Interrelationships between Reinforcing Bar
Physical Properties and Seismic Demands,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 95, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1998, pp. 175-182.
5. ASTM A431, “Specifications for High Strength Deformed
Billet-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement with 75,000 psi
Minimum Yield Strength,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 1959. (withdrawn)
6. ASTM A432, “Specifications for Deformed Billet-Steel Bars for
Concrete Reinforcement with 60,000 psi Minimum Yield Strength,”
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1959. (withdrawn)
7. ASTM A615, “Standard Specification for Deformed Billet-Steel
Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1968.
8. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-51),” ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 22, No. 8, Apr. 1951,
pp. 589-652.
9. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-56),” ACI Journal, Proceedings V. 27, No. 9, May 1956,
pp. 913-986.
10. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for
Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-63),” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1963, 144 pp.
11. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for
Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-71),” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1971, 78 pp.
12. ASTM A615, “Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain
Billet-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 1974.
13. ASTM A615/A615M-09b, “Standard Specification for Deformed
and Plain Carbon-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2009, 6 pp.
14. Hognestad, E., “Trends in Consumer Demands for New Grades
of Reinforcing Steel,” Proceedings, Fall Business Meeting, Concrete
Reinforcing Steel Institute, 1965, pp. 22-32, published as PCA
Development Department Bulletin D130.
Selected for reader interest by the editors.
David P. Gustafson, FACI, is a Consultant
based in Winthrop Harbor, IL. After receiving
his PhD in civil engineering from Tulane
University and serving as an Assistant
Professor of civil engineering at Michigan
Technological University, he served on the
CRSI technical staff for more than 32 years.
He is a member of ACI Committees 222,
Corrosion of Metals in Concrete; 301,
Specifications for Concrete; and 318, Structural Concrete Building
Code; and he chairs ASTM Subcommittee A01.05, Steel Reinforce-
ment. He is a licensed structural engineer in Illinois and a licensed
professional engineer in Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin.